Hold High the Invincible Banner of Marxism-Leninism

Article of the newspaper "A Classe Operaria", central
organ of the CP of Brazil (July 1977), published in “'Zëri i Popuillit”, of August 30, 1977

Four
years ago, “A Classe Operaria” published the article “On the
Anti-Imperialist Struggle". This article was an affirmation of the
resolute stand of the CC of the CP of Brazil in connection with the
false role which was being attributed to the so-called third world.
This article armed the Brazilian communists with a correct
understanding of the problems connected with the anti-imperialist
united front and gave them a clear perspective of the struggle for the
revolution and the hegemony of the proletariat.

Since
that time, life has fully confirmed the assessment made in this
article. The party was not sucked in by the harmful orientation which
preached reformist solutions according to the theory of the third world
to the dependent countries. Thus ideological confusion in its ranks was
avoided.

Today, when the confusing, counter-revolutionary
theory of three worlds is taking form and efforts are being made to
implant it in the communist movement, the article. “On the
Anti-imperialist Struggle” is assuming greater importance and is very
valid today for our Party. Although all the problems included in this
theory are not dealt with, the arguments which the article presents are
opposed in essence to the mistaken theses from which it is formed.

At the present time, the ideological debate is centred on the theory of
three worlds, against all aspects of which a consistent struggle must
be waged. We are living at a moment when everyone must take his stand.
Just as in the sixties, the question is posed again, whether to accept
or reject an orientation which is a fundamental violation of the
revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.

The “Decadence” of US Imperialism

One of the arguments most in fashion which the partisans of the theory
of three worlds are spreading is the hypothetical decadence of US
imperialism. This decadence allegedly determines the possibility that
US imperialism can become one of the allies in the struggle against
social imperialism and facilitate the rise of the third world. "A
Classe Operaria” has opposed this thesis, which is neither new nor
original and has always been linked with the "peaceful road", since
that time.

The Brazilian comrades long ago recognised its real content. In 1945,
basing himself on Browderism, Prestes defended the idea that
"imperialism had lost its teeth”, and in this way, to some degree
accepted that its nature had changed. According to him, the USA was no
longer able to stop the advance of various countries to democracy. Thus
he substantiated the opportunist orientation of the peaceful road which
the party was following. It did not take long for it to be shown that
this thesis was without foundation. In 1947, Truman went on the
offensive, with the aim of establishing world domination, and the
feeble democracy in Brazil was wiped out.

Later in 1956, it was Khrushchev who claimed that "imperialism had lost
its teeth". Allegedly a profound change had taken place in the ratio of
forces in the world, and this would allow the communist and workers'
movement to achieve its objectives in a peaceful way. Moreover, with
the "decadence” of imperialism, the conditions had allegedly been
created for the existence of a world “without arms and without wars”.
Such an orientation caused the revolutionary movement great harm and
did not respond in the least to the reality.

Now this issue has emerged again on the political scene, decked out in
new rayment, but still with the same opportunist character. By talking
about the "decadence" of US imperialism, efforts are being made to
minimize its aggressive and predatory activity, to present it as less
dangerous than its Soviet rival, to justify alliance with it (reliance
on one superpower to combat the other). If this theory were taken to
its logical conclusion it would be catastrophic for the peoples.

As long ago as in his time, Lenin stressed that imperialism is
capitalism in its death throes, in decay. Although it continues to
develop as a system, it has now reached its peak, and is in its fatal
decline. In this way we can speak of the decadence of imperialism, both
US imperialism and Soviet imperialism and the others. This shows that
the historical conditions are ripe for socialism, that the proletarian
revolution has become an objective necessity.

However the decadence about which the partisans of the theory of three
worlds are speaking is something quite different. According to them,
the decadent imperialism is the one which is falling behind its
competitors, the one that is in decline in comparison with the
positions it occupied earlier in the context of its exploitation of the
world. In this case, they say, its nature is not what it was before and
it can play a positive role in the struggle against the more powerful
forces, and even become a reserve of the revolution. But the very
nature of capitalism in its monopoly phase is aggressive, expansionist,
and predatory. It will continue to display this character in any
circumstances, and will carry it to the grave. It is known that
British, French, German and Japanese imperialism have lost their former
"brilliance" and that the ambitious post-war plans of US imperialism
are being cut back. Nevertheless, British imperialism coped with Nazi
Germany. In the fifties British imperialism, together with French
imperialism, attacked Egypt. In the fifties and sixties the French
monopolists waged the war in Indochina and Algeria. German and Japanese
imperialism are raising their heads and preparing to secure a “place in
the sun”. In regard to US imperialism, it has been the banner-bearer of
armed aggressions since World War 2. They have all suffered defeats at
the hands of the national liberation movements. Despite this, however,
they have not reconciled themselves to defeat, have not become harmless
to the peoples, and certainly not their friends. All of them, without
exception, are striving for expansion and trying to find
neo-colonialist formulas to achieve their ambitions.

US imperialism is the savagest oppressor and exploiter of the peoples,
one of the greatest enemies of national freedom and independence. With
its use of the atomic bomb in Japan and the horrors of the war in Korea
and Vietnam, it has shown just what it is capable of in its attempts to
achieve its aims. The champions of the theory of three worlds say that
now it is on the defensive, whereas social imperialism is on the
offensive. But defensive does not indicate any change in the
warmongering and exploiting nature of imperialism. On the contrary,
frequently it is the form in which to prepare for a future aggression.
In any case the question must be asked: who is on the offensive in the
Middle East, Latin America and even the Indian Ocean region? Likewise
in Spain and Portugal? Who commands the military union of Western
Europe in the framework of NATO? It is clear that it is the USA despite
the contradictions and differences it has with the governments of some
of these states. One of the criteria for assessing the offensive or
defensive positions of a given country, in regard to its ambitions for
world domination, is its preparations for war. At present the USA is
leading in the armaments race. In total volume, no other country spends
so much, none is so intensively perfecting death-dealing weapons.
Indeed, Carter is ready to order the serial production of neutron
bombs, weapons intended to wipe out people on an unimaginable scale.
The Soviet Union, too, is intensifying its armaments industry. It is
increasing its war fleet to extraordinary proportions, has built up its
stocks of nuclear missiles, and has created new types of devastating
offensive weapons.

The fact is that US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism are
competing fiercely for world hegemony and are preparing for a new world
bloodbath. Each of them is striving to gain strategic positions. In a
number of zones, the Russians are on the offensive, in others, the
Americans. But their plans run up against the struggle of the peoples,
who are dealing them continual blows and opposing their plans for
domination, Sometimes they are forced to withdraw from the places in
which they had been established, but they never abandon their ominous
aims.

In trying to argue the "decadence" of US imperialism, the partisans of
the theory of three worlds point to the superiority of social
imperialism in all fields. It is true that capitalism develops
unevenly, and consequently, it is possible that the Soviet Union will
outstrip the USA but it cannot be said flatly that the Soviet Union is
ahead of the Americans. It must be pointed out that the great
development of the Soviet Union comes about as a result of its
development in the period when it was a socialist country. Since it
became an imperialist country, its foreign debts have increased, it has
taken foreign capital to increase its production, its foreign trade has
suffered serious upsets with the need to import colossal quantities of
grain. It is incontestable that it has tried to expand and has
transformed its allies into "satellites", is carrying on an extensive
arms trade, and investing capital outside its borders in order to
secure maximum profits. But this kind of development is precisely one
of the factors leading to the decay of the new system. The USA has a
great advantage in the basic branches of the economy and the total
volume of gross production, in the financial field and in technology.
And it is not lagging behind in the creation of a powerful military
arsenal.

The superiority of one imperialist country over the others is a factor
for war, because that country seeks to redivide the world to its own
advantage, and this can be achieved only by means of force. There is no
doubt that the Soviet Union has pretensions to world domination, is
following a counter-revolutionary policy of aggression and hegemony.
But the USA is still superior to Soviet social-imperialism.

And even if we accept that the Soviets will manage to surpass the
Americans and take the initiative to launch an aggression on a world
scale, would they be the only aggressors? Isn't the USA trying to
establish its hegemony? In defending the positions they have, the
imperialist countries (mainly the USA) are preparing to attack and
defeat their rival. In inter-imperialist conflicts, there are no
aggressors and victims of aggression, there is no just or unjust cause.
The two sides incite aggression, the cause they defend is unjust. In
war they are pursuing with other means the same expansionist, predatory
policy they followed previously.

The Soviet Union, as a social imperialist power, must not be
underestimated. It is a perfidious and savage enemy, one of the main
inciters of war. Under the mask of socialism, which it has betrayed,
and of Leninism, which it has denied, it is trying to pave the way to
its domination over the peoples. The peoples are faced with the major
duty of exposing it and destroying its hegemonic plans. But its
opponent in world-wide rivalry, Yankee imperialism, is no less
dangerous and no less barbarous. The hatred of the masses of the
working people is focussed on it. Likewise, the struggle of the
exploited and oppressed throughout the continents is directed against
it.

It would be fatal for the proletariat to rank itself on the side of one
or the other war-mongering group, to link itself with one of them. In
this case, the two sides are the main enemy. In the time of the
inter-imperialist war of 1914-1918, Lenin proclaimed the genuine
proletarian policy, supporting the decisions taken in Basel against war
and its transformation into a war for social liberation. The parties
which wanted to find out which was the aggressor and which was the more
dangerous in this fight between jackals slipped into chauvinism,
betrayed the international cause of the proletariat. If the present-day
Marxist-Leninist parties allow themselves to be sucked in by the
absurdity that in every war, even in an inter-imperialist war, there is
always a main enemy against which the working class must take the side
of its rival, they would be making the criminal blunder, which led to
the defeat of the Second International.

In conclusion, the so-called inferiority and "decadence" of the USA,
preached by the theoreticians of the three worlds, serves to lull to
sleep the revolutionary consciousness of those exploited by capital, to
hitch them to the strategy of one of the two aggressive blocs.
Likewise, the so-called aid which Soviet revisionism is giving for
national liberation and its alleged desire for the reduction of tension
on a world scale, propagated by the servants of the Kremlin, serve to
deceive the peoples, to blunt their vigilance, to facilitate its
domination over them. To rely on one of the two superpowers, under
whatever pretext, to believe in their demagogy about peace, to accept
that one of them can join the oppressed to help their liberation, means
to commit the gravest blunder, to deviate from the principle of the
class struggle, to turn one's back on the revolution and plunge into
the filth of opportunism.

The Third World

The so-called third world is introduced as a decisive part of the
theory of the three worlds. In the present conditions, it is supposed
to be the motive force of social development, the fundamental basis for
the defeat of the superpowers, and first and foremost, for the defeat
of the Soviet Union, defined as the main and most dangerous enemy. It
allegedly represents a growing force, which is scoring victory after
victory over imperialism. The countries it includes are allegedly
advancing in the construction of an independent and progressive society.

It was a time when this third world, the world of the non-aligned or
developing countries – three definitions, which express the same
content, – appeared to be united and achieving considerable successes.
This "world" surged ahead in the years 1972-1973. The demand for 200
miles of territorial waters was presented as a determined
anti-imperialist stand (now, the United States, the Soviet Union and
France, too, have established the 200 miles limit). The raising of the
oil price was hailed as the liberation of countries oppressed by
imperialism and the demand for the evaluation of raw materials of the
third world was pointed out as a new road for national liberation. The
third world became fashionable. Allende in Chile, Peron in Argentine,
Velasco in Peru, Fidel Castro in Cuba – all considered themselves as
belonging to the third world. Indeed, even Geisel fell in love with
this trend. Precisely at this time certain revolutionary, socialist
circles began to sing praises to the third world and consider
themselves as an integral part of it, obscuring the distinctions in
principle between socialism and capitalism.

Our Party never accepted this astonishing classification, or this
tattered rag of the anti-imperialist united world front. As early as
1973 it revealed the incoherence and opportunist character implicit in
it. “The prospect of a third position which some trends are giving the
anti-imperialist movement is false, both theoretically and
politically," stressed the article in "A Classe Operaria”.

Now, whether its apologists like it or not, the concept of the third
world is in crisis. The so-called independence of the majority of these
countries was nothing but a passing illusion. Changes have taken place
in almost all of them, which have put an end to the alleged
anti-imperialism of their governments. They have become still more
dependent on the international finance capital (including that of the
Soviet Union). According to figures published recently by the UN
Conference of Trade and Development, on the basis of the figures
released by World Bank, the foreign debts of these countries in 1974
were 80 billion dollars, whereas now they have reached 240 billion
dollars. This is a heavy burden which has turned these countries into
vassals of the big powers. At the same time, they are taking part in
the armaments race. Never before have they bought so many modern
weapons which bind them to the imperialist suppliers from the technical
and military standpoints. The military coups or phoney elections have
destroyed what was left of the democratic freedoms and have established
ultra-reactionary and fascist systems. Their unity has been smashed.
Annexationist tendencies emerged in some of them and bloody clashes
burst out in many regions. India, Indonesia, Syria, Iran and others
subjugated their neighbours by means of force or are organizing
campaigns for such aims. Brazil subjugated the neighbouring countries
to its own interests and is threatening Guyana. Peru and Chile are
arming themselves and threatening each other. Guatemala seeks to annex
Belize. Territorial conflicts in Africa are becoming more acute. Apart
from the ominous aims of the ruling classes of these countries there
are the manoeuvres of imperialism, which is trying to exploit the
conflicts and quarrels to strengthen its own positions. The much
trumpeted development of the productive forces in the backward
countries is a dependent development, subordinated to foreign capital,
totally in opposition to the interests of these nations.

And it could not be otherwise, because those who consider themselves of
the third world are the ruling classes in the semi-colonial and
dependent countries, and the governments which represent them. In
general, these classes are reactionary because they have always been
linked, in one way or another, with imperialism which they have never
intended to destroy. They are guards protecting old structures.
Threatened by the difficulties and under the great pressure of the
revolutionary movement, they began to demand certain advantages. But
the solutions which they propose, whether of an economic or political
character, are interwoven with the "goodwill" and “aid” of the
developed countries, that is, of the big monopolies. As they themselves
say, they want to strike bargains with imperialism. They do not
represent the genuine democratic and anti-imperialist movement which is
undoubtedly growing in almost all zones of the world. On the contrary,
this movement, which gathers in its ranks the majority of every nation,
is resolutely fighting such classes and governments, traitors to the
national interests.

Thus, how it can be said that these reactionary forces are motor of
social development? How it can be accepted, without making a gross
opportunist deviation, that this heterogeneous conglomeration linked
with the monopolies represents the bastion of the struggle against the
superpowers and for liberation from the yoke of imperialism? The
Albanian comrades are completely correct when they stress that, “to
speak in general terms about the so-called 'third world' as the main
force of the struggle against imperialism and revolution, as the
supporters of the theory of the 'three worlds' are doing, without
making any distinction between the genuine anti-imperialist and
revolutionary forces and the pro-imperialist, reactionary and fascist
forces in power in a number of the developing countries, means a
flagrant departure from the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and to
advocate the typically opportunist viewpoints, causing confusion and
disorganization among the revolutionary forces”.

It is a deception to call on the peoples to close their ranks around
the third world, that is around the reactionary forces of the
underdeveloped countries. In this way they will never achieve the
solution of their fundamental problems, shake off the yoke of
oppression and defeat their sworn enemies.

The partisans of the third world are deviating from the revolution,
they do not want it and do not fight for it, because the revolution –
an objective necessity for national and social liberation – is directed
both against the external enemy, and against the reactionary and
fascist governments of semi-colonial and dependent countries. The
partisans of the third world formulated the thesis that the fundamental
task of those countries is to ensure their economic independence,
because allegedly they have their political independence. This thesis,
with a reformist content, responds to the aspirations of the
reactionary bourgeoisie. By mechanically separating economic
independence from political independence, they deny the necessity for
the revolution, subordinate the struggle of the people to the
leadership of the bourgeoisie which is allegedly fighting for economic
independence, when in fact it is opening the doors of the country to
foreign capital and making enslaving agreements with imperialism. There
is no doubt that the winning of genuine political independence is the
fundamental premise for ensuring economic independence. Without the
former, the latter cannot be won. Precisely for this reason it is
necessary to carry out the revolution, because none, or almost none, of
the countries of the so-called third world enjoys real national
independence. In one way or the other they have been trapped in the web
of imperialist domination, are suffering under the oppressive yoke of
the foreign monopolies and still have a backward agricultural
structure. In general, their governments are anti-popular. The peoples
of the oppressed nations "can put an end to imperialist oppression and
exploitation”, stressed the article of "A Classe Operaria” in July
1973, "only by following the road of the revolution. This must smash
the main obstacles to national progress and independence, must
overthrow the power of the reactionary forces, isolate the conciliatory
forces, liquidate the bureaucratic apparatus, ensure extensive freedoms
for the masses and create the people's armed forces". It also stressed
that this task requires the leadership of the proletariat and an
appropriate socialist perspective.

It is not correct to speak of an upsurge of the so-called third world.
The true democratic and anti-imperialist movement is on the rise. It is
developing on almost all the continents, coping with the most brutal
reaction of the reactionary ruling classes of those countries. This
movement, and not the third world, must be considered as a support
basis and ally of the world revolution, as one of the pillars on which
the strategy of international proletariat is based. It is a fraud to
confuse this movement with the reactionary governments. This means to
deny the principle of the class struggle, to plunge into the filth of
reformism, of narrow and anti-progressive nationalism, it means to
maintain the capitalist system on a world scale, which is in its final
phase and in the throes of its general crisis.

The Second World – an Opportunist Invention

In the strategic scheme of the theory of three worlds there is a
so-called second world, which is presented as a victim of the plunder
and oppression by US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism.
Allegedly it is threatened by the imminent Russian domination and
opposes the growing pressure of the USA. Its members are supposed to be
imperialist countries of Europe and Asia, as well as Canada, Australia
and the European satellites of the Soviet Union. They allegedly have
common demands which bring them into rapport with the dependent
countries of the third world, which they can help and unite with in the
struggle against the superpowers.

In fact, this second world is an opportunist invention. Although social
imperialist threats and US pressures exist, the countries of Western
Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia are allies of the USA and not of
the dependent countries. The other bloc, that of Eastern Europe,
despite the latent discontent, is the ally of the Soviet Union.
Although elbowed out from their old domains as a result of the
revolutionary movement, the European countries and Japan remain
plunderers and exploiters of peoples as always. Their predatory and
war-mongering nature has not changed. All of them employ
neo-colonialist forms in their relations with the backward countries,
keep close to the reactionary ruling classes of the oppressed nations
with the aim of establishing the necessary connections for economic
penetration and the strengthening of their political influence.

The aid of the second world for the third world is a fraud. For
instance, to regard the nuclear agreement between Federal Germany and
the Brazilian dictatorship as aid for the efforts of our people to
ensure their true independence, would show a total lack of the
revolutionary spirit. This agreement, which is thoroughly harmful to
the fundamental interests of Brazil, and which is opposed by the broad
patriotic forces, is a profitable deal for the German monopolies, a
means which will enable them to get their hands on the reserves of
uranium in our country, and in particular, will assist in the nuclear
arming of Germany. It will also serve the Brazilian military regime to
produce atomic weapons intended to threaten the neighbouring peoples
and satisfy the megalomaniac great power ambitions of the fascist
generals.

Federal Germany is now one of the biggest investors in Brazil, second
only to the USA. The aim of its investments is not in the least
different from that of US monopolies. It is mercilessly exploiting the
Brazilian workers and people, drawing fabulous profits from their sweat
and blood and the plunder of natural assets. Can it be said that the
German monopolists act differently in other countries? They act in the
same way everywhere.

The countries of the so-called second world not only invest capital,
plunder the raw materials, provide high interest loans, and technical
aid under heavy conditions, but also strive to secure key positions in
the home markets of the undeveloped countries. They are acting more and
more openly in the political field, too, trying to strengthen their
influence there.

It is well-known that Federal Germany, jointly with the United States
of America or for its own account, is carrying out intensive activity
in this direction, in an effort to curb the political processes which
are undesirable for imperialism. In Portugal and Spain it financed and
provided political support for the so-called moderate circles of those
countries, with the objective of closing the road to the advance of the
Left. In Latin America it is trying to organize the social-democratic
(or Christian-democrat) movement as a counterweight against the
revolutionary forces after the fall of the dictatorships. France, which
still has colonies, is intensifying its activity in Africa, trying to
rally around the metropolis the countries which were under its
domination in the past. It is selling them modern arms, accompanied
with French technicians and advisers. It is also taking part in
military actions, as in the case of Chad and Zaire. Britain, which is
perpetrating aggression against the people of Ireland and undertakes
acts of war against Iceland, is still rallying around itself the old
colonies of the British Commonwealth. Although they have lost their
so-called colonial majesty, the imperialist countries of Europe and
Asia are still monopolist and colonialist. The financial income which
is drawn from capital invested abroad, from their unequal trade with
the undeveloped countries, the sale of arms, from the interest of
usurious loans, etc., still represents a considerable part of their
national incomes, that is, a part of the total volume of capitalist
profits. They are enemies of the revolution, and the freedom and
independence of the oppressed peoples. There are contradictions between
them just as there are contradictions between them and US imperialism
and Russian social-imperialism, which are inevitable contradictions
between the exploiters, between wild beasts from the same pack.

The so-called unity of this "world" with what is called the third world
does not serve the policy of national liberation, but serves the
alliance of the imperialist countries of Europe and Asia with the
reactionary ruling classes of the oppressed nations. It assists them to
regain the positions they have lost and to intensify their plunder.
This harmful orientation deceives the peoples with a false perspective,
and creates confusion in the democratic and anti-imperialist movement.
It is only natural that the contradictions in the imperialist camp can
and should be skilfully exploited when the possibilities exist, but
never by accepting that the enemy can be transformed into a friend
because we have aims identical with his, and creating the illusion that
he is ready to liquidate the system which belongs to him and which he
is defending tooth and nail.

The Time Has Come to Define One's Stand

The theory of the three worlds is openly opposed to the
Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The roads which they point to are different.
The one leads to revolution (for national and social liberation) while
the other, to the maintenance of the capitalist-imperialist system. One
road favours the struggle for the hegemony of the proletariat, while
the other binds the working class and the progressive forces to the
bandwagon of the bourgeoisie. One road aids in strengthening the
communist parties, in order to awaken and unite the broad masses of the
exploited and oppressed, while the other divides the parties of the
vanguard forces, merges the revolutionary struggle in a front dominated
by reactionary trends. One enhances the political consciousness and
fighting spirit of the working people and the masses of the people,
while the other reduces the class consciousness of the proletariat.

The revolution is the main objective of the working class, it is the
inevitable trend of our epoch. As far back as 1848, with the Communist
Manifesto of Marx and Engels, the proletariat raised high its
independent banner of the struggle against the bourgeoisie. This was
not merely a formal proclamation.

That same year, it attempted to attain its socialist objectives in
France and again threw itself into the attack in the heroic and ever
relevant Paris Commune in 1871. It triumphed in old Russia in 1917.
Likewise it attempted to seize power in Hungary and Germany after the
First World War. Later, it triumphed in a number of countries of Europe
and Asia. Because of the revisionist betrayal, it suffered a setback,
but it stood gloriously in Albania and China. Whatever the zigzags of
history, the future belongs to it. And for this reason it publicly
proclaims its revolutionary objectives and never, under any pretext,
conceals its socialist aims, because they are the beacon that
illuminates its consciousness and the road to victory.

On various occasions attempts have been made to divert the proletariat
from this correct course. The ideals in connection with the
transformation of the world have been deliberately distorted. Thus the
time came to take decisions, and these decisions divided the
revolutionaries from the opportunists.

Now, too, the communist and workers' movement is living through a
decisive moment; either to continue to forge ahead on the road opened
by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, despite the very great difficulties
which emerged for it, or to enter a deceptive blind alley, by accepting
theories which have nothing proletarian about them.

The time has come to define one's stand. These are moments in which the
ideological and political structure of every party, every leader, every
vanguard militant is revealed. He who does not take a stand, in reality
takes inconsistent, vacillating stands, devoid of any spirit of
determination. The theory of three worlds is no ordinary theory,
towards which one can adopt a neutral stand. It lays down the
guidelines, it is an entire concept that claims to be the strategy and
tactics of the revolutionary proletariat and calls for organization of
the forces to put it into practice. A resolute struggle must be waged
against it. Only struggle will help the honest elements who have been
misled to correct their mistakes.

The Communist Party of Brazil will firmly adhere to the attitude it
adopted in 1962 when it broke with revisionism, when it upheld the
ideals of the revolution and took its place beside those who were
defending Marxism-Leninism. It expressed its opposition to the theory
of three worlds, to the strategy and tactics which stem from it, to
creation of sham Marxist-Leninist parties to give it support. Four
years ago, and indeed even earlier, in the article “On the
Anti-imperialist Struggle", it opposed the opportunist attempts to
abandon the common course laid down after the exposure of Khrushchev
and his flunkeys. And it will continue to march forward on the same
road.

Unity is a great thing. We will defend the unity of the revolutionary
movement but on the basis of principle. We hail the courageous and
unwavering stand of the Party of Labour of Albania and the other sister
parties which have come out openly in defence of Marxism-Leninism,
against the new opportunist trend on a world scale. These are
consistent stands of historic importance, which clearly show the
vitality and invincibility of the doctrine and ideas of Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin, of the proletarian revolutionaries of the present
day. Marxism-Leninism will triumph throughout the world. Although the
proletarian revolution has now suffered a number of setbacks, owing to
the treachery of revisionists, the factors which condition this
revolution continue to develop intensively and in colossal proportions.
The day will come when mankind will make a new, powerful leap forward
towards socialism and communism.